What do women want? Freud never found a definitive answer to his famous question, but the blogger who calls himself Delusion Damage thinks he’s got it figured out: women want men who can kill people with their bare hands.
DD is a sort of compound MRA-PUA who argues for “Men’s Liberation Through ‘Game,’” as he put it in a Spearhead post some months ago. Apparently, if dudes learn how to get the hot babes to give them strings-free sexy times, through the magic of “game,” this will help to “reduce the unilateral enslavement of men through marriage.”
And what attracts the ladies more than the ability to kill? Not much, apparently. If you’ve got that magic killing touch, everyone around you will sense your manly power:
You are a man. A man is a survivor, a hunter, a protector of loved ones. The essence of manliness is controlled power. … That is what women love and what other men respect. Women, most of them anyway, are unable to use force and must rely on men where force is required. … If you lack the ability to kill other people with your bare hands, you will be perceived as if something is missing from your manliness. …
If you can kill, the ladies will pick up on this instantly:
[H]aving the ability substantially raises the value she instinctively perceives you to have. Which, as we know, leads to all manner of good things.
I believe he’s referring to blowjobs.
Oh, and other dudes will be impressed, too:
The respect of other men is also greatly influenced by your killing ability. Up until graduation from high school, the male social hierarchy has a great deal to do with “who can beat up whom”, and although the hierarchy among adult men is more dependent on social and professional status signals, men never stop instinctively evaluating you by what they perceive your killing ability to be, and respecting or disrespecting you accordingly.
And this will set you apart from all the wimpy emo hipsters of the world, who couldn’t even fight a girl:
If there is a “defining” degree of killing ability that makes you “manly”, it is defined by comparison with the female of the species. …
In these dismal times, men who fall short of this line are not terribly rare. Many of the emaciated hipsters and cubicle-dwellers of our generation would have trouble against a Juanita from a rougher neighborhood. These men, due to their lack of killing ability, are seen as unmanly by both men and women.
Meanwhile, your ability to kill will make others sit up and take notice:
The ability to kill makes your feelings relevant. If you lose your temper, someone dies.
This of course implies good things about you – the fact that you aren’t in jail right now means that you are a man in control of his emotions. A man who never loses his temper. Everyone around you subconsciously understands this and respects you for it. It lets people know they can trust you.
Yeah, nothing screams “trustworthy” more than a guy going on and on about how he could kill you with his bare hands.
Also, the ability to kill can help to prevent the ladies from blabbing endlessly about their stupid lady crap to you:
A woman who knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that she will have less than three seconds to live from the second she makes you lose your temper is not going to set out to intentionally poke and prod you past your breaking point.
Aw, yeah, it’s good to be a potential bare-hands killer:
[Y]ou will be afforded a completely unprecedented kind of respect. …
When you are The Man, everyone around takes note. It is a form of celebrity. Women gravitate to you, pulled by the invisible streams of attention, respect and deference which we all subconsciously sense in any social situation.
Given the sort of adoring attention DD must get from the ladies, it’s sort of amazing that he finds time to even keep up a blog at all.
Romance, huh? So is it legit to bring up something like gay romance? Does that mean all women want women?
paniorpa: If you think that romance novels give and insight whatsoever into the desires of real, not-fictional women, you have more troubles than just asshattery.
Well, they’re being written to appeal to someone, and it’s clearly working…
I was completely sexually invisible; even if you count me as still being barely a teenage girl (which I suppose I am), now that I’m getting laid, I have maybe a couple of dozen men who have been interested in me over the past year
…which is still a hell of a lot more than the average man gets.
Pterygotus: FICTION. Escapism. Not real.
And for the sake of all the gods, please use SOMETHING to distinguish what you’re quoting from your reply. it’s not that difficult.
Ah, darn timezones, I missed everything!
Paniorpa,
a lot of women love writing and reading slash fanfiction.
Does that mean women want all men to be gay?
Seriously, which part of “fiction” and “escapism” don’t you guys understand?
Hey, remember when Piggy dropped by with CDC statistics that substantiated the fact that most men and women have about as many sexual partners over the year, with the possible exception of the most sexually active? Because I do.
Ozymandias’ get is more than the average woman’s too, in short. By a wide margin, in fact. Men, as an aggregate, don’t really do that badly at all.
The average woman can’t get more heterosexual shags than the average man – if you’re talking about mean numbers, that is. It’s an arithmetical impossibility.
As for medians: in surveys, women usually report a median number of partners about half that of men’s, meaning that either a) there are a very few women having all the sex all the time, which is the opposite of the MRAs’ usual “hypergamy” claim, or more likely b) people lie in surveys, and men over-report and/or women under-report.
Here’s an interesting article explaining all this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html?ei=5090&en=5a5deddcacff185c&ex=1344571200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
I think both men and women realize how much of a headache promiscuity is and wisely steer clear of it, thus giving them enough time to complete their homework ahead of time and sleep regularly and all that good stuff.
First, if a bear came up to me in a bar, I’d say “Hey, want to dance bear-style?”
Second, in my limited exposure to romance novels, I didn’t notice abusers disguised as decent men. Possibly because writers of escapist lit (much of romance, s.f., westerns, spy novels) tries to avoid situations that are too realistic.
@Missprism
You can’t even grasp the distinction between “virtual” and “actual”.
azymandias42
I believe you when you say you are 19. You are naive.
If they had the possibility – like most girls your age – most boys would fuck dozens of different girls every year.
This is what homosexuals do, because their partners have the same sexual frame of mind. Many fuck a different guy every week, or every night. They regularly report more than a thousand different partners in their life. That’s why sexual diseases spread so quickly among them.
Most women could easily have that many partners if they wanted to become dedicated sluts. They simply don’t want to. You have too few eggs to spoil them with suboptimal males.
We – on the contrary – have so many gamets the cost associated with fucking any girl is low.
Lesbians don’t fuck with hundreds of partners like gays do. They have the typical female sexual behavior.
Citation fucking needed.
Except for the part where, unlike about 90% of women, they have sex with other women.
Dude, I’ve been TURNED DOWN for casual sex. No-strings-attached casual sex from multiple guys who knew that I was a no-drama lay. Either I’m suboptimal enough that guys just don’t want to waste their gametes on me or your theory is stupid.
As for suboptimal males… well, I’ll essentially fuck anyone who’ll have me (and won’t make the experience completely unpleasant and assuming I’m not polysaturated already). This has lead to me quite happily sleeping with an assortment of losers. Do I not exist under your theory?
Oh, here we go: the Crackpot Social Psyche Theories of MRAs and Their Assorted Fellow Travelers, part Deux.
Oh, and you know why most women won’t have sex with random strangers? Because they have to worry about them being:
Schrodinger’s Rapist
Schrodinger’s Stalker
Schrodinger’s Guy Who’ll Chop Up Your Body And Leave It In The Fridge
Schrodinger’s Dude Who Can’t Find Your Clit
Schrodinger’s Dude Who Hasn’t Heard of Foreplay
Schrodinger’s Slut-Shaming Asshole
et cetera
“Citation fucking needed.”
Just read Warrior lovers, by Don Symons.
http://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Lovers-Fiction-Evolution-Sexuality/dp/0300093543
“Do I not exist under your theory?”
You are a slut. And you mustn’t be very attractive.
Some males carefully avoid to fuck with feminists sluts because these are prone to cry false rape after the deed. It’s wiser paying a whore.
“And you mustn’t be very attractive.”
I meant: you are probably not attractive
You have too few eggs to spoil them with suboptimal males.
By puberty, a woman’s eggs have declined to a paltry 300,000, of which 300-400 will be ovulated during her lifetime.
I don’t think women suffer from having too few eggs.
http://www.medicinenet.com/female_reproductive_system/page3.htm
I have no idea where that “fake rape” thing came from. I’m pretty sure that feminists are the most likely to cry real rape when, you know, we’re actually raped, but conversely less likely to make a false rape accusation, since we’re fully aware of the severity of rape (and because we’re hardly likely to use it as a method to avoid being slut-shamed).
As to my attractiveness, judge for yourself: http://tinypic.com/r/ac7pts/7 (NSFW).
Can I just say that the most annoying aspect of closing my blog is that now I have to TinyPic my naked pictures when people want to insult my attractiveness instead of just directing people to the relevant post?
Why is he bringing up egg supply? I thought the goal of casual sex was not to get pregnant. And if you’re doing it right, you’re using bc and condoms.
Calling “ugly” is so tired. Try harder, troll.
“I don’t think women suffer from having too few eggs.”
Our female ancestors would become pregnant once every three years on average (they had to wait until the last one died or was weaned to become fertile again).
So it means women had 10-15 opportunities to reproduce.
They had to make the best of these few tries. They couldn’t afford to waste these handfuls of opportunities.
In my anecdotal study (sample size of 1) I’ve had far more sex in lesbian relationships than in straight relationships. The guys I’ve been with seemed to have a headache every other day. The women? Almost always game for anything.
That doesn’t prove that men aren’t into sex … just that men and women are not two monolithic groups. There’s variety! People vary. Ev Psych is BS.
ozymandias42data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6095/c6095e74b02c07640549ba02419de13b1a080ffa" alt="🙂"
Do you expect me to comment?
That book isn’t exactly known among the slash fandom (or fanfic fandom in general) for its accuracy and carefully researched facts. It is known for it’s pseudo scientific evo.-psych bullshit, though.
Also, what the hell does that book have to do with the gays-are-way-more-promiscuous-than-straights stereotype that you spouted (which is also bullshit)?
Why do you think lesbians would have less sex than straights? Do you assume that lesbian couples mostly just lay in bed and cuddle while talking about their feelings? Your egg-theory doesn’t hold water here, either.
Those “males” you are talking about are kinda one of the reasons why many women don’t engage in casual sex.
Well, aside from the reasons that ozymandias42 mentioned.
You can’t go around calling women who have casual sex/ several sexual partners dirty dirty slut whore skanks, who would be totally responsible if they got raped, and then say “women don’t have as much sex because eggs and, clearly, they just don’t want to have sex as much as men do, for some reason!”
(Seriously though, what is it with these misogynists and talking about people like they would talk about wild animals on a safari tour? )
Well, there’s no point calling me ugly without evidence one way or the other. I must say, I would be reassured if you found me unattractive, since I would rather not be attractive to douchebags, but that’s neither here nor there.
Also, paniopra, you do understand how evolution works, right? There’s no such thing as a “best” gene. There are simply genes that are adaptive, or not adaptive, for a particular circumstance. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia is adaptive in Africa (lower chance of malaria), but not so much in Europe. If anything, a diversity of genes maximizes the chance of survival.
@ozymandias42
I certainly like what I see there ♥
I hope that doesn’t come off as creepy, though.